Plus he's a Nazi stormtrooper.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
I had him down as more of a quiet batperson.
Kind of funny that Milne put "Already, anyone who questions these figures — even in the academic debates — is denounced as a “neo-Stalinist.” in his article, that's exactly what a Stalinist would say.
I don't see the point. I think the deselection and subsequent split sounds more sensible.
The MP's need to accept the members don't agree with them (they never did, they were patient for a while due to a desire to end Thatcherism and the benefit of the doubt over the Blairites). The only appropriate response is to form a new party.
There was another major problem highlighted tonight for Labour in general, but more particularly Smith due to his EU pitch.
It's the immigration argument, and it's the fact that old people heavily supported Brexit and that those old people include the ones within Labour. We all know how important the oldies are in elections, but Owen Smith's plan of not enacting Brexit and thus not really doing anything about immigration essentially makes him more unelectable than Corbyn is.
I agree with him on the issue, but considering much of his pitch is about how he's the sensible, electable choice, it just doesn't wash when he wants to do something that will alienate swathes and swathes of older voters who just do not seem like immigration on the whole.
It's the immigration argument, and it's the fact that old people heavily supported Brexit and that those old people include the ones within Labour. We all know how important the oldies are in elections, but Owen Smith's plan of not enacting Brexit and thus not really doing anything about immigration essentially makes him more unelectable than Corbyn is.
I agree with him on the issue, but considering much of his pitch is about how he's the sensible, electable choice, it just doesn't wash when he wants to do something that will alienate swathes and swathes of older voters who just do not seem like immigration on the whole.
This isn't backed up by anything I've seen. Pre-2015 GE members prefer Smith by a distance according to the last YouGov, Corbyn's support gets stronger the newer the members are. There will be some returned lapsed members within that but I doubt it's a majority.
Then you have the risk of never electing a centre-left government again under FPTP, which is even more difficult given the UK electorate's conservativism (with a small 'c').
Surely it would be better for Labour to unite, get elected under FPTP, then pursue electoral reform and proper PR, which would allow for the factions to eventually split, and for the result to be coalitions which would require left and centre-left parties to function?
The thing is, Malcolm Tucker / Alastair Campbell was able to keep the troops in line through threatening/cajoling/encouraging/giving patronage etc.
It is not just Milne's views which I find divisive and make him (for me) a poor choice as Director of Comms, it is also the fact that it appears he cannot control the media message (which is a criminal failing).
Example from yesterday:
This, on a day when Corbyn united the PLP against the Tories. Milne's failure to control the backroom team is shocking, and again the story is about divisions rather than unity.
As I always admit, you have to play the media you have.
However if we had a genuinely worthwhile press the stories from yesterday would be focussing on the Libyan shitshow, and the fact that May and Smith supported it and Corbyn and McDonnell did not.
You might argue that Corbyn and McDonnell are stopped clocks, but if so the stopped clocks seem a great deal more accurate than almost every other MP
A very good summary of Smiths failings. His accusations that Corbyn didnt vote remain is one of the worst ones, its like the sort of baseless accusations you'd hear from Trump.
His campaign has been pretty much just name calling and abuse towards Corbyn. Its all a bit pathetic that they then complain of receiving abuse themselves.
I'm not sure how any of them can complain about the list tbh. They've publically attacked the leader of the party and its just calling them out on it, focus now has to be on unity and preventing these MPs running to the media.
Aye it's a bit rich to moan about a lack of unity when the list simply points out MPs who clearly have been determined to undermine the current leadership. That's not to say it should have been released/leaked.
It is bonkers really. During Question Time a week or two ago, Smith appeared mortally offended by one of the usual audience rabble suggesting that if he was unwilling to serve under Jeremy, he might be better off representing another party. He referred to this audience member's comment as being abuse and made a point of seeming utterly offended.
Later on during the very same debate he was more than happy himself to throw slanderous accusations at Jeremy such as him being soft on anti-semitism etc. It's all a bit laughable.
Yeah that was a particular highlight. Making headlines out of the abuse is one thing but to challenge a Labour member on TV over nothing just confirmed they were trying to weaponise it against Corbyn and it made him look a lot less credible.
I honestly think he'd be terrible at PMQ, Corbyn isnt great but does anyone think Smith would be any better?
Personally I dont think anybody could be worse than corbyn - but yeah Id put smith on a par.
Mind you anybody would struggle at the moment as I dont believe there is anybody who can unify the party and when you dont have the backing from your own side or all the attention is weather your supposed allies are cringing at your performance - or who is not clapping etc then basically your feked as nobody is even listening to the message... let the party split and at least then corbyn will have those who actually believe in him around him and a centrist party (probably the official opposition under co-op labour at a guess?) can put somebody a lot better than Jones into the role (probably jarvis as he is basically the nightmare candidate for conservatives to face)
Is Smith running on a platform the majority of MP's would really agree with, though? From what I've seen he's running as 'a leftie who isn't Jeremy', which is preferable to them for now but not actually in line with their politics.
That would of course be wonderful but hard to imagine at present.
The pre-May 2015 members' support isn't really pro-Smith, it's just anti-Corbyn, which is I think how you can characterise the PLP support. The overall levels of support in that group are Smith 68-32 Corbyn (compared to 14-86 for those who joined since September 2015), and Corbyn's job approval matches that pretty closely with "doing well" 31-67 "doing badly" (compared to 80-19).
He sees principles as an indulgence and has previous when it comes to towing the PLP line, rather than doing something he believes in. He's a 'New Labour' Morph, they can shape him into whatever they want him to be.
Honestly its just not viable to have one party anymore is it...its clearly not working so lets split up as friends... get a quickie divorce (let the lawyers sort out with the unions about who they want to back) and work together where our interests align for the sake of the
I understand the point but I think it's a bit dangerous when we start describing Labour MP's as if they are lizard people.
One reasoning could that while Milne is potentially awful, if Corbyn trusts him than that over rules anything else really, same goes for Mcdonnell and Abbott.
As for the messaging of MP's names yesterday -
. After Corbyn responds during the sky debate yesterday about the email(he wasn't overly fussed), I'm willing to bet Milne and Corbyn put out that list themselves and are blaming it on a non existing staffer. The big political news was Corbyn destroying May at P&Q(Although it should have been about Libya)and the news about the email did nothing to take away from that.
. Party unity is gone and not going to come back(I don't think it was every there in the first place) in my view. And deselection seem to at least an idea on the Corbyn team, so the email was either at threat to the MP who were mentioned to get in line. Or a very straight way to tell members who to get rid of. Personally I would quite like some of them gone, Tom Watson and Tristram Hunt being the main ones.
. Finally why this does'nt matter to much but the story you quoted is from George Eaton who at best is a bit shite. This is a guy who for some bizarre reason claimed to know for certain Corbyn voted Out in the referendum. And there's also this recent piece from private eye about his reporting of the soon to held Momentum conference at the Labour conference.
I would trust his Labour ''sources''
Oh he's not a lizard person, if he was he'd actually have some sort of mass appeal. He simply does what the PLP tell him to, usually without question or delay.
For him that is probably a good thing, his 'off message' comments during the hustings speak for themselves. Doesn't half make the 'contest' anything but one though.
The vote Remain one is ridiculous, yeah, because it's just not provable unless Corbyn publicly admits to it. It's an absolute waste of time and to keep on bringing it up is just a tad patronising in general. When he was asked one area on which he disagreed with Corbyn on QT, he brought this one up, though. Instead of an actual policy, or even fecking nukes, his one area of disagreement with Jeremy he could remember was something he can't even prove they disagree on!
And that brings me to my next point...who is briefing him? Is there no one who's taken him into an office and even told him what he should say when he's asked what they disagree on? Because it's not difficult...there has to be something.
But according to disgruntled MPs the logic for not supporting Corbyn is that his leadership is an open goal for the Tories in 2020. The one thing that is for certain regardless of your views on Corbyn is that splitting the centre-left/left vote between two parties would be far more damaging electorally than anything a leader could possibly do. A split of the party instigated by the right would be as good as an admission that concerns about Corbyn's electoral performances were just a cover for political ambitions and bruised egos.
An underlying issue here is that there's a sizeable proportion of the PLP for whom politics is a career (albeit one that allows them to make a difference) and who have put in the hours working for successive leaders in order to advance that career. For those people, Corbyn's election as leader must have felt like all the kudos they felt they earned over the years of working for Blair/Brown/Milliband was wasted effort and that they were now back at square one. Which isn't to say they're entirely self-motivated or that they're intrinsically bad people, I can fully understand why the prospect of a 'blank-slate' caused by Corbyn's election will have angered people who felt they'd earnt the right to a place at the top table through their service to previous leaders, but they have to understand that being an elected representative accountable to a political party isn't like working your way up a company.
Corbyn's intention to explore the viability of a Basic Income is very positive. The fact that Smith dismissed it out of hand sums him up really
There is zero chance that the British electorate would vote for someone running on a platform of Basic Income.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...med-the-financial-crash-and-called-himself-a/
We can expect to see this during a future GE campaign i think. The language used and more importantly its tone, will be about as well received as Donald Trump in a university safe space.
We can expect to see this during a future GE campaign i think. The language used and more importantly its tone, will be about as well received as Donald Trump in a university safe space.
The vote Remain one is ridiculous, yeah, because it's just not provable unless Corbyn publicly admits to it. It's an absolute waste of time and to keep on bringing it up is just a tad patronising in general. When he was asked one area on which he disagreed with Corbyn on QT, he brought this one up, though. Instead of an actual policy, or even fecking nukes, his one area of disagreement with Jeremy he could remember was something he can't even prove they disagree on!
And that brings me to my next point...who is briefing him? Is there no one who's taken him into an office and even told him what he should say when he's asked what they disagree on? Because it's not difficult...there has to be something.
The ridiculous thing about the "remain" vote is that Corbyn stood there and campaigned on numerous occasions sighting sensible and heart felt reasons as to why we should remain. He will have influenced God knows how many people to vote remain so for him to then sneakily give his solitary vote to the leave campaign seems incredibly insignificant and inconsequential.
Reading a Guardians summary...e had a very plausible defence.
I mean I do think there's a point that Corbyn's heart probably wasn't fully in it due to his anti-EU past, but even then it's pointless for Smith to dwell on because it's not something that holds any sort of provable basis at all. It does nothing but make him look petty and vindictive, trying to expose Corbyn for doing stuff he's told Smith about 20 times now he didn't do.
And I think it's safe to say that the idea Labour voters voted Leave because of Corbyn (well, some of them) has been rebuked. Older Labour voters in particular voted Leave because they want less immigration and don't feel that can happen with the EU. That's not a Corbyn problem; it's a problem which Labour as a whole must address because if they intend to reverse Brexit then either side, moderate or left, kills their electability chances. In fact I'd say those chances are dead already...because old Labour voters will no longer vote Labour when they have stronger anti-immigration alternatives available.
I see he's said it was a joke. Like all his terrorist jokes.
Who knew he was a stand up rather than a politician.
I'm sure that's the end of that then.
Fair enough.
He said it was a joke, the next thing he said was that bankers have done more for socialism than the SWP.
Great long read from the Newstatesmen on Labours failed Golden Generation - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/fall-labour-s-golden-generation
Really interesting read. It's interesting to see how highly Ed Balls was perceived in his early years when I think, as shadow chancellor, he came across as a bit of an incompetent idiot.
I get the impression, though, that the group had become so accustomed to Labour being in power that they kind of just assumed the country would continue to want that and that they wouldn't have to fight very hard in the process. The article touches on it as well: that sort of arrogance they've perhaps lost since their defeats.
Fair points are made about Scotland too: for all the talk of the referendum being the catalyst, the decline started long before that and should've become painfully evident in 2011. The party largely ignored it though and that's what cost key figures like Alexander and Murphy their political careers. That kind of arrogance is there in the comment about killing nationalism stone dead - Labour were dominant in Scotland but never even considered for a moment that it was something that could change.
I think the generation referred to (and Blair and Brown as well) just failed to anticipate that political moods change over time, and that the attitudes/policies they won multiple elections on were not going to be popular in another election or two.
Smith comes across as insufferably swarmy. Nothing that comes out of his mouth sounds remotely genuine.
Fully expect him to be humiliated come next week, hopefully that'll be the end of him then.
Fully expect him to be humiliated come next week, hopefully that'll be the end of him then.
Erm so Smith just claimed Momentum is just a recreation of Militant because they both start with M
And this is the leading Manchester United forum...Erm so Smith just claimed Momentum is just a recreation of Militant because they both start with M
Dan Jarvis Among ‘Moderate’ Figures Tipped To Join Jeremy Corbyn’s Shadow Team
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...on-shadow-cabinet_uk_57dbb59fe4b0d584f7f09d38
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...on-shadow-cabinet_uk_57dbb59fe4b0d584f7f09d38
Jarvis would surprise me, Starmer and Healey less so.
Surely Gloria de Piero won't have the time to commit to stand in Shadow Cabinet elections as well as both writing for and condemning The Sun?
He needs experience so its probably a case of extending his profile.
I can see why some of the more high profile figures may not want to go back but for any other Labour MP taking up a position gives them influence and thus opportunity to represent their constituents. Thats supposed to have been their concern at the end of the day.